Over the last few weeks I produced two earlier presentations concerning the Iran Nuke Deal; one entitled “The Truth About The Iran Nuke Deal” followed a few days later by “Iran Nuke Deal – Part II”.

In the first presentation I explained that the Iran Nuke Deal is actually Iran being welcomed into the community of nations with nuclear weapons. I not only explained that’s the reality of the deal, I explained why that is so.

The second presentation simply added additional substantiating information that had become available in the time since the first presentation was released.

Here, in Part III, I want to answer the question that is likely on the minds of many Americans. “Why?” Why would those countries be welcoming Iran into the community of nations with nuclear weapons?

In Part One I addressed the reasons that have a more current context. In this presentation I want to explain the long-term strategic shift that has led to what you are seeing.

First, you should understand that while the deal was ostensibly crafted by a group of nations, this entire thing has been driven by the U.S. and its long-term term strategic objectives. The group construct – commonly known in the media as the “P5+1 group” is merely window dressing so that Americans will perceive it as a “global” or “community” decision, not solely the will of the U.S. government.

As you can imagine, if the U.S. has shifted its position from “a nuclear Iran is something we don’t want” to “a nuclear Iran is acceptable”, that signals a significant change in the strategic objectives of the U.S. government.

Let’s remember that the long-standing U.S. paradigm for the Middle East – that Israel will possess nuclear weapons but no one else in the region will – dates back to the 1960s. Do we imagine there have been some changes in the last 50 years? Of course, but the big changes occurred in the last 10 years.

Let me distill a whole lot of information down to a few salient facts.

The U.S. now essentially owns Iraq – and we maintain strategic bases there.

The U.S. now essentially owns Afghanistan – and we maintain strategic bases there.

The CIA successfully destabilized the Arab country with the highest standard of living in the Middle East – Libya.

The U.S. is now attempting the sequel in Syria.

Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Oman, Morocco, and Egypt are all now America’s little bitches. When the U.S. tells them to jump, they ask “How high?”

Hell, the Emirates were flying combat missions into Syria as proxies for the U.S.

The U.S. message in the Middle East is clear. And that message is; If you wish to keep your kingdom, you will do what we tell you. If you don’t, we’ll take your kingdom away from you and give it to the puppet of our choosing. And like Saddam, you’ll be dead.

This is obviously a huge difference from how the U.S. operated in the Middle East in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. Obviously this dramatic shift signals a different philosophy by the U.S. on how to address the Middle East. And that “different philosophy” includes what diplomats refer to “a realignment.” For those of us who prefer plain speaking, that means making new friends and alter relationships with yesterday’s friends.

You may have noticed there are two players in the Middle East I haven’t yet mentioned. One is Saudi Arabia, with whom the U.S. government, including the CIA, has enjoyed a particularly warm and cooperative relationship. But the Saudis mistakenly believed that their relationship with the U.S. was discretionary – that they were a sovereign nation, free to do as they please.

A few years back the Saudi Royal Family seemed to have grown some balls and started acting as if they were free to walk away from their special relationship with the U.S. They started flirting with other nations, presumably as a reminder to the U.S. of how much – in the mind of the Saudis – we need them.

Well, guess what? The specter of a nuclear Iran has resulted in the Saudis rushing back into the embrace of the U.S. Problem solved.

But of course there is one more nation I haven’t mentioned. Israel.

I just spoke about how dramatically different the U.S.’s involvement in the Middle East has been in the last decade compared to the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. During those decades the U.S. considered it highly advantageous to use Israel as the “western presence” in the Middle East. I won’t go into all the detail here, but the U.S. used Israel – what the Arab nations see as an “enemy in their midst” – during those decades as a major part of its strategic Middle Eastern game plan.

U.S. military, intelligence, and monetary actions in the Middle East over the last decade has changed all that. The U.S. no longer sees Israel as providing any strategic benefit to the U.S. In fact, the current thinking – which is part of a long-term strategic shift – is that maintaining a special and unique relationship with Israel is now disadvantageous to the U.S. Welcoming Iran into the community of nations with nuclear weapons is visible confirmation of that strategic paradigm shift.

Many Americans have long felt the U.S. has some sort of moral duty to support Israel. The U.S. government has used that sentiment to support its earlier actions in the Middle East. But for the government support of Israel has never been a moral issue; it’s been a strategic issue. Under the new strategic framework Israel is no longer a key player in the U.S. plan.

There is far too much information concerning how the U.S.’s new strategic plan will alter the Arab/Israel equation to go into it here, but I can assure you that the days of the U.S. serving as Israel’s protector and the guarantor of Israel’s survival are now coming to a close. And quickly.

In conclusion, The U.S. has a new – and entirely different – strategic game plan for the Middle East, going forward. One of the early moves in that new game plan is welcoming Iran into the community of nations with nuclear weapons. And THAT is what the Iran Nuke Deal is really all about.

Part of the liberty equation is knowing what the U.S. government is doing – in your name – even when the government isn’t telling you the truth – which is pretty much all the time.